Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAY, C.J.I. AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, J.
P. Dasa Muni Reddy, Appellant
Versus
P. Appa Rao, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1228 of 1973,
D/- 10-9-1974.
Andhra Pradesh Buildings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2)(i) and 3(1)(a) - U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972 - Section 1-A - Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1960 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 44 - Lease Expired - Vacate and Deliver Vacant Possession - Appellant is owner of building in question - Building was constructed - Appellant let out building to respondent on a lease for three years - Lease was on monthly basis - Lease expired - Appellant filed an application before Rent Controller for eviction of respondent from building – Held, Appellant proved that appellant made a mistake of fact in regard to building being outside mischief of Act - Appellant instituted suit before Rent Controller in mistake about underlying and fundamental fact that building was outside ambit of Act - Civil Court has jurisdiction in subsequent suit which is subject of this appeal - Appellant is not disentitled to any relief on grounds of res judicata or estoppel or waiver - As one cannot confer jurisdiction by consent similarly one cannot by agreement waive exclusive jurisdiction of courts - Civil Court and not Rent Control Court possesses jurisdiction over building in question - For these reasons judgment of High Court is set aside - Decree in favour of appellant passed by trial Court and confirmed by First Appellate Court is restored - Respondent wanted time to quit and vacate building in question - Respondent is given time to vacate and deliver vacant possession to appellant - Appeal allowed.
Judgement
RAY, C. J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment D/- 5-9-1972* of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appellant s suit against the respondent for possession of the building in occupation of the respondent.
* Reported in (1973) 1 Andh Pra LJ 103.
2. The appellant is the owner of the building in question. The building was constructed sometime in 1958. The appellant on 1 November, 1958 let out the building to the respondent on a lease for three years. The lease was on monthly basis. The lease expired on 31 October, 1961.
3. The appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller Chandragiri for eviction of the respondent from the building. The application was under section 10(2)(i) read with Section 3(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 30 September, 1963, the Rent Controller dismissed the application for eviction.
4. On 7 October, 1963 the appellant gave a notice to the respondent determining the lease and asked for possession. The appellant stated in the notice that the building was constructed after 26 August, 1957 and therefore, the Act did not apply to the building in question. On 21 October, 1963 the respondent replied and denied that the building was constructed after 26 August, 1957.
5. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Act against the order of the Rent Controller dated 30 September, 1963. On 17 December, 1965, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
6. On 20 November, 1967 the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff, Tirupathi for eviction of the respondent. The cause of action was that the respondent did not surrender possession of the building on the expiry of the lease. Further allegations were that the respondent committed default in payment of rent. The appellant referred to the proceedings before the Rent Controller resulting in dismissal of the appellant s application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent. The appellant also alleged that the provisions of the Act did not apply to the building in question because it was constructed after 26 August, 1957.
7. On 26 March 1969 the appellant s suit was decreed. The respondent preferred an appeal. The Subordinate Judge on 24 February 1972 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree.
8. The High Court on 5 September 1972 reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and set aside the decree.
9. The High Court held that the appellant was precluded by the principle of waiver from claiming any relief in the suit. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Lachoo Mal v. Radhye Shyam reported in 1971 (3) SCR 693 The appellant there was a tenant. The landlord wanted to demolish the house and construct a new building. The landlord and the tenant entered into an agreement. The agreement was that the tenant would vacate the shop on condition that after the completion of the construction of the house, and tenant would resume the possession of the shop. The agreement further provided that the landlord would not be entitled to derive benefits from the Rent Control and Eviction Act. Section 1-A of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act provided that the buildings constructed after 1 January 1951 were exempted from the operation of the Act. The section said that nothing in the Act shall apply to any building or part of a building which was under erection or was constructed on or after 1 January 1951. The tenant resumed possession of the shop after its construction. The tenant offered rent to the landlord. The landlord did not accept the same. The tenant thereafter deposited the rent. The landlord gave a notice to determine the tenancy. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the tenant was entitled to the protection conferred by Section 3 of the Act. The District Judge took a contrary view and decreed the suit of the landlord. The High Court held that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
